Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News
Apr. 18, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

'BASEBALL RULE': Injured fan strikes out in court

Ruling protects stadium operators from lawsuits

By SEAN WHALEY
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

Kathleen Turner
Baseball struck fan while she was in Beer Garden at Cashman Field

CARSON CITY -- Always keep your eye on the ball has taken on new meaning in Nevada.

On Thursday, the state Supreme Court handed down a decision establishing broad protections for stadium operators from lawsuits involving foul ball injuries.

Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • UNLV sacks football coach Sanford




    • In a 4-3 decision, the court said stadium operators have protections from lawsuits involving foul balls striking fans, even if an injury occurs outside of the stands.

    In adopting the "baseball rule" for an entire stadium, the court majority dealt a death blow to a lawsuit filed by Las Vegas 51s fan Kathleen Turner, who was eating a sandwich in the Beer Garden at Cashman Field in 2002 when a foul ball struck her between the eyes, breaking her nose and cutting her face.

    The court majority said a stadium operator has a limited duty to protect spectators against injuries caused by foul balls that are errantly projected into the stands.

    But the court said the operator in the case at hand, Mandalay Sports Entertainment, which operates the stadium where the Las Vegas 51s play baseball, "satisfied its duty as a matter of law under the facts presented in this case."

    The court minority argued that the "baseball rule" protecting stadium operators from liability for foul balls should apply only to the stands, where spectators are more attuned to the potential for an injury from a foul ball.

    Attorney Beau Sterling, representing Turner, said the majority extended the protection to an entire stadium, which had the effect of upholding a lower court ruling that threw out Turner's case in 2005.

    "It's a close decision, and it provides some comfort," Sterling said. "But it's also a bit more painful. It's all about counting to four in Nevada."

    Sterling had asked the court to adopt a more limited rule, giving juries the opportunity to determine if a foul ball injury that occurs outside the stands should result in compensation for the injured party.

    Turner was sitting in an area where there are seats with a limited visibility of the game.

    Sterling said the court majority has now equated sitting in such an area to sitting behind home plate.

    "We thought it should be a question for a jury to decide," Sterling said.

    Attorney Thomas Dillard Jr., who represents Mandalay, could not be reached for comment on the decision.

    But in October oral arguments in Las Vegas on the case, Dillard described Turner as an experienced baseball spectator who should have known to pay attention to the game at all times. Dillard also noted that 51s tickets carry a warning about the risk of foul balls.

    The majority decision was written by Justice Ron Parraguirre, who was joined by Justices Bill Maupin, Jim Hardesty and Nancy Saitta.

    In adopting the "limited duty," or baseball, rule, Parraguirre said a stadium operator's obligations to safeguard baseball fans is satisfied by sufficient protected seating for those spectators who reasonably might be anticipated to desire protected seats, and when protection is also provided for spectators in the most dangerous parts of the stadium, such as behind home plate.

    "Once a stadium owner or operator complies with the rule's requirements by providing sufficient protected seating, the owner or operator has satisfied the legal duty of protection owed to its patrons," Parraguirre said. "Having met this obligation, the stadium owner or operator simply has no remaining duty to protect spectators from foul balls, which are a known, obvious, and unavoidable part of all baseball games."

    The record in the case establishes that foul balls occasionally fly into the Beer Garden, some parts of which have an obstructed view of the field, he noted.

    Chief Justice Mark Gibbons dissented and was joined by Justices Michael Douglas and Michael Cherry.

    Gibbons supported the adoption of the limited duty rule but only to the stands.

    "Because the limited duty rule should not apply outside of the stands, I conclude that the 51s had a general duty to protect Mrs. Turner from injury in the Beer Garden," Gibbons wrote. "Whether the 51s breached that duty by failing to provide a protective screen or barrier is a question of fact for the jury."

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 10 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Ernest Worrell wrote on April 18, 2008 07:06 PM: Next time pay attention, instead of stuffing your face. She is not a real fan. Probably didn't get the foul ball either.


    douglas wrote on April 18, 2008 06:47 PM: what should happen is that each citizen is self-insured, "no fault". thus the fellow who thought that his used trousers were worth 54 million dollars could have, just like a life policy, bought personal possession coverage to that 54 million buck limit. for some reason, those trousers rose to that 54 million value only after the loss.

    the "progressive" political party, heavily funded by the trial lawyer groups of course wouldn't stand for it. with no fault coverage to the extent that the owner would purchase coverage would not allow for the million/billion dollar "awards".

    citizens who anticipated multi-million dollar "damages" for "loss of consortium" or "psychic pain" could put their fears aside with the insurance purchase in advance for such losses.


    Morty wrote on April 18, 2008 11:10 AM: Welcome to the Pu$$yfication of America" where nobody is responsible for their own actions.


    douglas wrote on April 18, 2008 10:41 AM: then the decision must extend to all spectator events where paid attendees are injured as a direct result of the attraction. a couple of situations come to mind...

    aircraft crashing into spectators at air shows, even when those spectators are in areas assigned for them

    spectators in viewing stands at auto racing events injured when the cars leave the track

    perhaps pedestrians in a crosswalk might no longer have recourse against the motorist who negligently ran over them... because they should expect to be injured when in public areas near auto traffic ?


    Kong wrote on April 18, 2008 10:14 AM: Ted, if you want to know what frivolous means I suggest you look between your legs. Maybe get a tattoo there as well pointing to the area so you can remember how to spell the word. When someone loses 4-3 in the SUPREME COURT I'm pretty sure the one thing you can say is reasonable minds can disagree. Since you have labeled this case frivolous, however, I'm guessing the only case you ever feel is justified is one in which you are injured.


    fluffy wrote on April 18, 2008 09:57 AM: Ted- for all we know, shyster DID include all the folks you mentioned as defendants, but they were rightfully thrown out by the judge.

    p- if'n ya don't wantcha nose flatted by a baseball, don't go to a baseball game. A little personal responsibility goes a looooooooooooong way.


    Elvis wrote on April 18, 2008 09:01 AM: How pathetic, either don't go to a baseball game next time, or keep your head up and pay attention!!! So sick of all the garbage lawsuits out there and this is another example.

    Intelligent people know that when they go to a baseball game that baseballs are being hit and might just go outside of the playing field.


    p wrote on April 18, 2008 08:26 AM: that does not seem to be frivilous!! how would you like a ball between the eyes with a hard ball or any kind ??? that breaks a nose, etc?? they should or someone should at least pay for her "medical bills"


    Ted wrote on April 18, 2008 07:32 AM: This case goes to show that somewhere you can always find some shyster who will sue anybody, no matter how frivilous. The only surprising thing is that Sterling didn't also sue the batter who hit the foul, the pitcher who threw the pitch, and the manufacturer of the ball. Maybe he hasn't thought of it yet. Stay tuned.


    0u812 wrote on April 18, 2008 06:21 AM: Your Out lady